re: "US to designate the IRGC, affiliates as terrorists"

Amir Toumaj at the Long War Journal ("dedicated to providing original and accurate reporting and analysis of the Long War (also known as the Global War on Terror)") marked some long-overdue news.

Money quote(s):

"Known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the law’s Iran section requires the president to extend a terrorism designation pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its foreign agents and affiliates by Oct. 30.

The milestone marks the first instance the US will designate the military branch of a foreign country for terrorism."

Read the whole thing here.

"E.O. 13224 is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of terrorists and their supporters, while isolating them from the US financial and commercial systems, according to Treasury."

Why is this long overdue?  Here's why (highlighted for emphasis):

"During the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Guard provided material assistance to militants targeting American soldiers and in Iraq directly oversaw attacks."

re: "Terrorist group’s supporters throw party in U.S. Congress"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") reported from bizarro-world (which is to say: Capitol Hill).

Money quote(s):

"It's not every day that groups supporting a State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization hold a party in the U.S. Congress, but that's exactly what happened today when the friends of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) threw their Nowruz party in the hearing room of the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

Okay, they didn't bill themselves as the FOMEK (friends of the MEK), but that's essentially who they were. See below.

"(T)he event is sponsored by "Iranian American communities" from around the United States, but the mention of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty is a clear reference to the MEK, a group designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization that has about 3,000 members living in the secretive Ashraf compound in Iraq.

The U.N. and the State Department are working to move them to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport, but the MEK is resisting that move, and has enlisted its many supporters in the United States to decry the conditions at the former military base. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to call Camp Liberty a "concentration camp." "

Normally, I have every respect in the world for the former mayor, but in this case he's either a willing dupe or being played.

No shame in being played by the PMOI; they're quite good at it after all.

"(T)he Treasury Department's counterterrorism unit has issued a subpoena to former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for records related to his paid advocacy of the MEK, as part of an investigation into the web of organizations that support the terrorist group.

There is a long list of Iranian-American organizations that fund pro-MEK events and pay speakers fees to MEK supporters. Many of these organizations - such as the "Global Initiative for Democracy, whose homepage is entirely devoted to the MEK's concerns and who hosted an MEK conference in January -- seem to have no other function other than to advocate for the MEK, and the actual sources of their money is unclear.

Receiving funding from a terrorist organization or even providing it with "material support," which could include advocacy, is a crime." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Crime is in the eye of the prosecuting (nor non-prosecuting) attorneys, it would seem.

"The campaign by the MEK's supporters to disparage Camp Liberty and lobby for the MEK's removal from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations has included huge rallies outside the State Department, massive sit-ins at Congressional hearings, and an ongoing vigil outside the State Department's C Street entrance."

The vigil seems to have evaporated of late, just to give an update on that.

"Congressional aides attended the event on Thursday in the hearing room both out of curiosity and hunger for free food. But multiple aides told The Cable the event was bizarre, even by Congressional standards." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA has never worked on Capitol Hill, himself, although he's worked in the vicinity at two different executive departments. Still, at least some the of the "hill rats" got a nice kabob lunch out of this.

3/22

re: "U.N. Iraq chief: The countries of the world must take MEK ‘refugees’"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") reported on the UN's efforts to resettle the PMOI.

Money quote(s):

"The United Nations and the State Department have been struggling to convince the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) to move to a former U.S. military base in Iraq, but the real need is for third countries to accept MEK "refugees" on a permanent basis, according to the top U.N. representative in Iraq."

That would be Martin Kobler, "the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq."

"The MEK is a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization opposed to the Iranian regime that has been living in a closed compound in Iraq called Camp Ashraf for years. The Iraqi government has pledged to close Camp Ashraf, using force if necessary, so the U.N. and the State Department are slowly but surely cajoling Ashraf's 3,200 residents to move to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport.

But that's only a temporary solution. Unless other countries start accepting MEK members for relocation, they could face the prospect of being returned to Iran, where they could face retribution from the Iranian regime they have been fighting for decades."

They "could" at that.

"Part of the difficulty of dealing with the MEK group members at Camp Ashraf is that they have been cut off from the world for years and little is known about their individual histories or whether they would qualify for refugee status. Some reports say that MEK members are still conducting violent attacks inside Iran at the behest of the Israeli government.

The United States is legally barred from accepting any refugees from members of a foreign terrorist organization. There is also no plan for what happens to those MEK members who do not qualify for refugee status."

It seems unlikely that any of the 3,200 interned PMOI members in Iraq are conducting any attacks in Iran, but that doesn't mean they couldn't possibly be involved, directing, or in some other ways supporting those attacks.

"Kobler disputed the claims made by the MEK and its long list of American advocates that the Camp Liberty site is not fit for human occupation."

Kobler's not just saying that to hear himself talk, by all reports.

"Kobler declined to comment on reports that the MEK is involved in ongoing attacks on the Iranian nuclear program and its personnel inside Iran. He also declined to confirm that U.N. reports have stated that MEK members were intentionally sabotaging the facilities in Camp Liberty in order to make the camp look worse than it is" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Not that the Iraqis aren't capable having looted or otherwise degraded the Camp Liberty facility after the U.S. departed, but since U.S. embassy folks are reported to have inspected the place prior to any PMOI members being moved there.... let's just say I give some faith and credit to my colleagues in Baghdad.

"Some advocates of the MEK, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have called Camp Ashraf a "concentration camp," a reference Kobler said is insulting and offensive."

4/16

re: "Patrick Kennedy on the MEK: I am an Ashrafi"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") had recapped the big PMOI/MEK rally at Foggy Bottom last August.

Money quote(s):

"Hundreds of supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) movement converged on the State Department on Friday to hear former U.S. congressmen and senior officials call for the U.S. government to take the MEK off its list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) emceed the rally in front of the State Department headquarters."

Just to be clear, this is not the same Pat Kennedy who looms so large at State Department.

That would have a lot bigger deal, frankly, in terms of getting the PMOI/MEK delisted.

"Kennedy advocated taking the MEK off the terrorist list, which it has been on since 1997, and accused the Iraqi government of committing war crimes by killing innocent members of the MEK at Camp Ashraf. 3,400 MEK members live in the desert camp in Iraq under restrictive conditions."

The facts presented don't have all that much to do with whether the PMOI/MEK belongs on the terrorist organization list or not. Not the length of time they've been on the list, not whether the Iraqi government killed some of their members (innocent or otherwise; and Iraq has grounds for a grudge against them, btw), nor the conditions under which they live at Camp Ashraf or anywhere else.

I do like the description of Camp Ashraf as being a "desert camp."

(I'll give you a "desert camp"....)

Conditions at Camp Ashraf, largely through the efforts of their own members and organization, are pretty nice compared to anything near to the camp. They bottle their own soda (we called them "mek cola," a term to which they objected), bake their own bread, and make their own ice cream.

"Next up was Rendell, who called on the international community to militarily intervene in Camp Ashraf, comparing it to Muammar al-Qaddafi's assault on Benghazi earlier this year."

What an awesomely bad idea, not to mention politically impossible in the U.S. context. Precisely what "international community" does he have in mind? Include us out.

"MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, who lives in Paris with her husband Massoud Rajavi (who hasn't been seen in public since 2003), is banned from traveling to the United States. But she spoke to the rally via a video message on a big screen, and accused the State Department of giving implicit permission to the Iranian and Iraqi governments to kill children."

The reason no ones seen Massoud is, probably, because he's dead. Not even mostly dead but really and truly dead.

"The Cable's informal headcount put the number of attendees at about 1,000 to 1,500, with long lines of young Iranian-Americans wearing shirts with photos of dead MEK members imprinted on them. Some attendees had photos of the Rajavis on their shirts. Add to that flags, confetti, and a full drum line." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

8/26

re: "Remind Me Again, We're at War in Afghanistan Because . . . ? [CORRECTED]"

Andrew C. McCarthy at The Corner ("The one and only.") took issue with the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Taliban is not included in State’s listing of Foreign Terrorist Organizations — not the Taliban whose terrorism and safe haven for al Qaeda are the justification for continuing to have our troops fight and die in Afghanistan"

&

"I’ve argued before (most recently here) that Congress should amend the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — the legal foundation for conducting U.S. combat operations in the War on Terror — so that the Taliban organizations (among others) are expressly specified as the enemy. But what’s the chance that we will be clear about who the enemy is if the administration can’t even bring itself to say the Taliban is a terrorist organization?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Recollecting from the dim recesses of memory, but we went to war in the territory of the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan in order to get at Al-Qaeda, the Taliban having declined to give them up to us when we asked nicely.

That approach having lacked much in the way of positive results, a U.S./NATO-led coalition went to war with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan since the two seemed unwilling or unable to extricate themselves from one another.

"(I)f the Obama administration were encouraging negotiations with the Taliban (it is) and even anticipating a settlement in which the Taliban were brought into the Afghan government (ditto), the State Department wouldn’t want to complicate that by naming the Taliban as a terrorist organization, right? So we are putting our forces in harm’s way in the War on Terror order to fight an outfit that we won’t call “terrorists” and that we actually see as part of the future Afghan government we are building."

8/25

re: "This Is A Parody--Right?"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shared a good appreciation of our Iranian adversaries.

Money quote(s):

"One might be tempted to think that this situation—whatever it is and whoever it involves—is a very serious matter and that our government will respond with the kind of righteous rage demonstrated after 9-11. It is a very serious matter indeed, but that's where reality breaks down.

As reported at Fox News, we've intercepted an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to America, with explosives, on American soil. Iranian members of the Quds Force," a paramilitary spy/internal security force pursued a hit on the Ambassador by trying to hire what they thought was a Mexican drug cartel to make the attack. Two Iranian agents were captured and others remain at large."

Shocked? Nah, me neither. Neither was Mr. McDaniel, who shared a nice 11 point list to justify his non-surprise.

"What must the Iranians think of our response thus far? We're imposing sanctions on individual Iranian spies? American firms won't be able to do business with them? Just how many Americans firms, pray tell, do a considerable portion of their business with Iranian operatives such that these sanctions will have any effect—other than provoking uproarious Iranian laughter—on Iran? Will the threat of treating their spies as common criminals accorded the full protections of the Constitution the Iranians not only refuse to recognize but see as a sign of weakness strike fear into the hearts of the hardened terrorist murderers running that despotic nation? Will it cause them to abandon their nuclear designs? Beg for mercy and forgiveness from Israel?"

&

"America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012. On the other hand, with leadership that bows to despots, reflexively supports Marxist and Islamist despots and which actually delivers arms to our deadly enemies as a cynical and incredibly stupid means of imposing anti-freedom domestic policies, do we really need enemies?"

10/11

re: "State Department scrambling to move the MEK -- to a former U.S. military base?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") gave a good state-of-play on our PMOI friends.

Money quote(s):

"The Iraqi government has promised to shutter Camp Ashraf -- the home of the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) -- by Dec. 31. Now, the United Nations and the State Department are scrambling to move the MEK to another location inside Iraq, which just may be a former U.S. military base."

Obviously, this date has slipped some since Mr. Rogin's post.

"The Marxist-Islamist group, which was formed in 1965, was used by Saddam Hussein to attack the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and has been implicated in the deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilians. The new Iraqi government has been trying to evict them from Camp Ashraf since the United States toppled Saddam in 2003. The U.S. military guarded the outside of the camp until handing over external security to the Iraqis in 2009. The Iraqi Army has since tried twice to enter Camp Ashraf, resulting in bloody clashes with the MEK both times.

Now the United Nations, led by Martin Kobler, the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), is working with the State Department to convince the Iraqi government and the MEK to open up a new home for MEK members inside Iraq, at a facility near the Baghdad airport. U.S. officials won't confirm, but also won't deny, that facility is a U.S. military base that was recently handed over to the Iraqis."

Mr. Rogin omits mention that Saddam also used the PMOI against internal opponents, including Kurds. The U.S. personnel (and civilians) assassinated by the PMOI were working in Iran before the Revolution.

"Nobody knows how many people are in Camp Ashraf, because nobody can go inside. The residents are also suspected to be well armed. There could be as many as 3,200 people there, according to the State Department. If they are evicted from the camp, some will voluntarily go back to Iran and some will go to other countries. Others still may not actually be MEK members but could be living there for their own reason, making their relocation easier, the official said. The unknown number of "card-carrying members" of the MEK who can't or won't be relocated are the ones who the United Nations and State are trying to move to the new camp."

Camp Ashraf's residents used to be extremely well armed, but their armored vehicles and artillery were given to newly-formed Iraqi army units several years ago. Still, CAA is not alone in his suspicions that Camp Ashraf has supplies of (at least) small arms and ammunition hidden away for a rainy day.

As for "card-carrying," CAA can attest that they didn't have membership cards at Camp Ashraf until 2003 when U.S. forces conducting conducting screening operations there issued photo-IDs to residents as part of the process where they were photographed and fingerprinted.

"(T)he Iraqis have been warning for months that they would close Camp Ashraf by the end of the year. So why is everybody scrambling in the last two weeks? The State Department is placing the blame squarely on the MEK."

Well, we would, wouldn't we?

"The official said the new facility would be better because it would give the Iraqi government some control over what goes on there.

"[Camp Ashraf] is a state within a state. It is run by the MEK and when anybody else tries to enter, well, we've seen what occurs," one State Department official said, explaining that the new camp would have some type of Iraqi government administration and yet not be in total control of the MEK. "Iraqi soveriegnty will prevail with a robust set or arrangements and U.N. monitoring."

Another reason the United Nations and State are pushing for the MEK to be moved from Camp Ashraf to another facility is that the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has refused to give refugee status to Ashraf residents because of the MEK's tight control over the people there."

Also, Camp Ashraf (near Khalis) just isn't that close and convenient to Baghdad where international organizations can get to quickly and without a lot of red-tape and hassles.

"Advocating for the MEK is a tricky proposition for the State Department, because the organization is on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The MEK has been lobbying hard for its removal from that list and State's review of their status has been "ongoing" for years.

As part of its multi-million dollar lobbying effort, the MEK has paid dozens of top U.S. officials and former officials to speak on its behalf, sometimes at rallies on the State Department's doorstep. MEK supporters have been stationed outside the State Department non-stop for months now, and are even showing up at Congressional hearings."

State's review of the PMOI's status is reviewed just as regularly as every other organization listed by State as being terrorists. Which is to say as often as regulations require.

"(W)hat happens after the MEK moves to the new facility, even if the current deal is worked out in time? What's the plan to deal with these people over the long run?

"Right now our priority is in a successful, peaceful relocation," the State Department official said. "One huge problem at a time."

UPDATE: The AP reported has just reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to grant a 6-month extenstion on the closing of Camp Ashraf, although he is backdating the start of the extension to November."

So, we can expect the next crisis to loom on schedule later this year, perhaps beginning in March.

12/21

re: "A Humanitarian Catastrophe at Ashraf Spells Political Catastrophe for the White House"

Henrick Hermansson at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") outlined the problem.

Money quote(s):

"U.S. troops are set to completely withdraw from Iraq on the 31st of December. That is also the date for another more ominous deadline: al-Maliki's government has ordered what looks to be a bloody attack on innocent political refugees on that very same day, despite strong condemnations from human rights groups, parliamentarians, and journalists from around the world. Maliki's order to empty Camp Ashraf, which will no doubt lead to a massacre, came after his meeting with the Iranian leader Khamenei. Dispersion of the camp residents no doubt will resemble what happened to the Jewish community during the Second World War.

The attack will target the 3,400 residents of Ashraf, or "Camp New Iraq," who are Iranian political dissidents hated by Iraq's powerful neighbor. The camp has been attacked by Iraqi forces twice before, once in April this year and once in 2009, and in total more than 47 of the civilian residents were killed -- either shot or run over by armored vehicles. At present the camp is inhumanely blockaded by Iraqi troops who prevent medical and other vital supplies, journalists, human rights groups, and parliamentarians from entering."

The deadline has obviously passed, without (yet) tragic results for Camp Ashraf's inhabitants.

Sec. Clinton has deputized Amb. Daniel Fried to lead U.S. efforts on resolving this issue and in a U.N.-brokered compromise with the al-Maliki government, the residents of Camp Ashraf will be moved to the former Camp Liberty, where their situation can be monitored by both UNHCR and U.S. Embassy personnel.

See Amb. Fried's presser here.

"The residents of the camp have a complicated history. They fled Iran after tens of thousands of political dissidents were executed by the Khomeini regime in the eighties. They were welcomed in Iraq, which, with the support of Western governments, was at war with Iran. Most of the residents have lived in or near Ashraf now for a quarter-century and have built lives, schools, and a beautiful mosque there. They were also integral in revealing the Iranian secret nuclear facilities. As a source of inspiration, they are important to the "Persian Spring." All in all, this is more than enough to put them on the regime's death list.

The residents also have a complicated history with the U.S. In 1997, as a gesture of goodwill to the "moderate" Khatami government in Iran, the U.S. put the residents (or rather the organization many of them belong to) on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations, without any factual basis. In the EU and Britain, courts have declared terror designations of this organization "perverse" and removed them. Despite a federal court ruling ordering the designation to be reviewed, the removal process is being stalled for political reasons in the U.S. by the State Department. At the same time, the residents of Ashraf have been protected by and had very good relationships with U.S. troops, been designated as protected persons by the U.S. under the fourth Geneva Convention, and have been declared U.S. allies by chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FBI directors, and other prominent members of the intelligence community."

With all due respect to Mr. Hermansson, some of the above isn't exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

1. "They fled Iran after tens of thousands of political dissidents were executed by the Khomeini regime in the eighties." They fled Iran after the Revolution (which they participated in as allies of Khomeini, including, possibly, the U.S. embassy takeover) and the mullahs started purifying the new regime (as one does). They may even have started the fighting between the Khomeini regime and their particular faction, being rather fond of explosive and other violent forms of assassinations at the time.

2. "They were welcomed in Iraq, which, with the support of Western governments, was at war with Iran." They were welcomed by Saddam Hussein's regime, which used them as loyal shock troops to put down revolts by, among others, the Kurds. With Saddam gone, they don't have a lot of friends left in Iraq.

3. "As a source of inspiration, they are important to the "Persian Spring." " That's wish-fulfillment fantasy talk. There was never any indication that the protesters who filled the streets took any inspiration from the PMOI/MEK. If anything, the mullahcracy seems to have been successful in painting the PMOI/MEK as traitors to Iran, due mostly to the PMOI/MEK's own actions in fighting against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

4. "In 1997, as a gesture of goodwill to the "moderate" Khatami government in Iran, the U.S. put the residents (or rather the organization many of them belong to) on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations, without any factual basis." While CAA takes a backseat to none in questioning the timing of the decision to list the PMOI/MEK, they have done what they have done, fully meriting their place on said list.

5. "Despite a federal court ruling ordering the designation to be reviewed, the removal process is being stalled for political reasons in the U.S. by the State Department." Placement, and removal, of an organization on the State Department's terrorist organizations list follows a protocol, subject to periodic review. CAA had a chat, last year, with one of the people who had previously been charged with conducting that review and didn't come away thinking that the process had been politicized.

6. "At the same time, the residents of Ashraf have been protected by and had very good relationships with U.S. troops, been designated as protected persons by the U.S. under the fourth Geneva Convention, and have been declared U.S. allies by chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FBI directors, and other prominent members of the intelligence community." Camp Ashraf's PMOI/MEK inhabitants took great care and pains with what we used to call their "charm offensive" to ingratiate themselves to the U.S. troops assigned to their protection. This doesn't by itself make them bad people (assassinating U.S. personnel in Iran before the Revolution will suffice on the organizational level to earn that classification), nor does, necessarily, being enemies of America's enemies (i.e., the "evil mullah regime" in Iran) make them good people. Their entitlement, based upon my own close reading of the Laws of Land Warfare, to Protected status doesn't hinge upon them good or bad people. Lastly, the JCS, FBI, and the IC don't get to decide who are U.S. allies (or not).

"The residents of Ashraf enjoy as wide bipartisan support as any issue in Washington today."

True enough. And CAA would view them much more sympathetically, given how long ago the PMOI/MEK's anti-U.S. violance took place, if they'd simply own up to it (at long last) and stop with the denials.

12/18

re: "Homegrown Terrorists Love al Qaeda, But Not As Much As You'd Think "

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people. Get it?") commented on a piece at by J.M. Berger at The Atlantic.

Money quote(s):

"From an academic point of view the distinction between targeting civilians and those in the military is important."

In the realm of warfare, the distinction is critical, since targeting civilians can be a war crime.

(Note: Combatants who do not wear uniforms are not necessarily civilians, which also touches on the subject of war crimes.)

"Perhaps the distinction is important only because the most apt description of these 'homegrown terrorists' has fallen out of use, mostly for PC reasons.

In the past we didn't call them terrorists, we just called them traitors." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

One popular terrorist activity of the 1970s was the hijacking of passenger aircraft. This is still termed, occasionally, "air piracy."

Let's go down that road. If terrorist hijackers are air pirates, perhaps other terrorist activities are better classified as modern-day versions of the age-old phenomena of piracy, banditry, and brigandage?

The common thread here? Terrorists, by their acts and their nature, place themselves outside the normal course and protection of civilized law, as pirates, bandits, and brigands always have done.

They should be dealt with accordingly.

7/19

re: "Remembering: On The Tenth Anniversary Of 9/11."

John Bernard, 1st Sgt. USMC (ret.), at Big Peace prepared some remarks for this year's 9/11 remembrance.

Money quote(s):

"Ten years ago, today, 19 Al Qaeda affiliated hijackers stole 4 jets and flew them into the World Trade Center Buildings, the Pentagon, along route 95 and attempted to crash a fourth into some as yet unknown target. That fourth plane never reached it’s “reassigned” destination. In all, 2998 people perished at the hands of those 19 zealots of a seventh century, demonically inspired ideology.

I refuse to call them terrorists.

Terrorist is but one of many misnomers that has been associated with a segment of the world population that believe the actions of that day were righteous. Make no mistake about it; the nineteen men that committed that atrocity on American soil that we remember today were but the tip of the sword."

Soldiers of Allah (S.O.A.), just like Major Hasan.

"Since that day, hundreds of thousands of United States Service members, have been compelled, by this government, into harm’s way to hold responsible those who plotted those attacks. Tens of thousands have been wounded, some with life changing effect. Nearly five thousand have died doing the same.

Their combined sacrifices are a direct result of the actions of that day and yet, they are neither remembered nor their brothers, invited. We compound this injustice by perpetuating an insidious act of political cowardice by not naming the enemy who inspired those attacks, cheered the attackers and with whom we are still, presumably, locked in battle."

9/11

re: "Commanders Livid As Obama Orders Reduction of Iraq Troop Strength To... 3000"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ cut to the heart of the matter.

Money quote(s):

"How can 3000 men in a foreign country accomplish anything, even securing their own safety?

This seems, yet again, to be a purely political decision, made without regard to any security goal or even the affected troops' safety.

If you're hollowing out the force to the point where they are no longer tasked with anything except defending themselves from terrorist attacks, why are they there at all?"

Lipstick on a pig?

(9/6)

re: "Unfinished Business"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") knows who's been naughty.

Money quote(s):

"Iran is stepping up their nasty little tricks in neighboring Iraq"

Well, why wouldn't they? Is there an imaginable possible downside?

"(W)hile it’s true that the military’s nation building capacity is already stretched to its limits, much of our nation breaking capacity is idling. As an oil exporting country that is hugely reliant on imported processed fuel, Iran is vulnerable at sea and in the air. Just four weeks of the kind of effort undertaken against the strategically meaningless Libyan regime would bring the mullahcracy to its knees and help liberate the creative energies of a rising generation that has no personal memory of the SAVAK, the shah or the revolution.

We have expended enormous sums of blood and treasure rebuilding Iraq, and what happens there as we draw down forces matters. The Iranians simply cannot be trusted to play a useful role. And whether you call it a Global War on Terror, a War Against Violent Extremism or Overseas Contingency Operations, there is little doubt that we have been very much trimming around the edges of the problem rather than digging at its roots. Iran supports terrorists in the Levant who attack a US ally, and the country’s leadership is elbow deep in the blood of US soldiers – it has been for decades."

Iran has been consistent in implementing its policy stance (i.e., implacable hostility) towards the U.S. since the revolution overthrew the Shah's government.

"The bottom line comes down to this: Iran is in a de facto state of war with the United States.

There ought to be a reckoning."

Gotta love those Serenity/Firefly allusions.

re: "Biden calls Republicans terrorists"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is all out of love for the vice president.

Money quote(s):

"I realize that politicians sometimes wrestle with difficult issues and tempers can flare, but the number of times that Democrats have compared the opposition to terrorists during these debt discussions is disgraceful. It is low and shameful, and I wish I could say I expect better. But I don't, even from the second highest office holder in the land, a man elevated far above his abilities."

&

"As for the rest of the Dems who think that fiscal responsibility equates to slaughtering innocents, well prepare yourselves for the chopping block come next November. The American people are sick of a bunch of jackasses who think that they have first claim on the fruits of our labor. Wrong answer. We the people do not owe Washington our earnings with whatever they feel they don't need grudgingly returned to the productive class. Looters and moochers have overstepped their bounds. Time to set them straight and shut the redistribution of wealth machines down."

re: "Congressman: Classify Mexican Drug Cartels As Terrorist Groups"

Niccolo Machiavelli at Big Peace reports on a serious suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his designation would allow the United States to limit cartels’ financial, property and travel interests, and to impose harsher punishment on anyone who provides material support to cartels."

This is not a step to be taken lightly. But it sharply highlights the limitations of our more conventional, "soft power" mechanisms, which don't seem to have improved matters much. Lots of consequences for diplomacy, for business, for travelers, for border states.

"Rep. McCaul, a former federal prosecutor, introduced the legislation on the eve of his hearing examining the United States’ role in the Mexico’s fight against the cartels.

Since 2006 the cartels have killed nearly 35,000 people in Mexico. Over the past year they have killed three individuals (including two U.S. citizens) connected to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, a gubernatorial candidate in the state of Tamaulipas, 12 sitting mayors and one U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent.

According to a press release issued by McCaul’s office, Mexican drug cartels “operate in the same manner as al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hezbollah, each sharing a desire and using similar tactics to gain political and economic influence. They actively affect political, judicial and law enforcement in Mexico. They employ the same tactics as other organizations designated as FTOs – kidnappings, political assassinations, attacks on civilian and military targets, taking over cities and even putting up checkpoints in order to control territory and institutions. Torture, beheadings, dismemberment and mutilation are common tactics that they use to intimidate civilians and government officials."

When all else fails, apply the "if it quacks like a duck" test.

NYT - Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

From my archive of press clippings:

New York Times

Bill Targets Citizenship of Terrorists’ Allies

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and CARL HULSE

Published: May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Proposed legislation that would allow the government to revoke American citizenship from people suspected of allying themselves with terrorists set off a legal and political debate Thursday that scrambled some of the usual partisan lines on civil-liberties issues.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Terrorist Expatriation Act, co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of people who provide support to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or who attack the United States or its allies."

"Identical legislation is also being introduced in the House by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Jason Altmire, a Democrat, and Charlie Dent, a Republican. The lawmakers said at a news conference that revoking citizenship would block terrorism suspects from using American passports to re-enter the United States and make them eligible for prosecution before a military commission instead of a civilian court.
Citing with approval news reports that President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing the targeted killing of a radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Mr. Lieberman argued that if that policy was legal — and he said he believed it was — then stripping people of citizenship for joining terrorist organizations should also be acceptable.

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects."

&

"The proposal would amend an existing, although rarely used, program run by the State Department. It dates to a law enacted by Congress in 1940 that allowed the stripping of citizenship for activities like voting in another country’s elections or joining the army of a nation that is at war with the United States. People who lose their citizenship can contest the decision in court.

The Supreme Court later narrowed the program’s scope, declaring that the Constitution did not allow the government to take away people’s citizenship against their will. The proposal does not alter the requirement of evidence of voluntariness.

That means that if the proposal passed, the State Department would have to cite evidence that a person not only joined Al Qaeda, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship, and the advantages it conveys, to rescind it."

re: "New Design for London Embassy"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") is willing to accept the risks of diplomatic service overseas, but doesn't counsel foolishness either.

Money quote(s):

"So much of the debate of "fortress embassies" has portrayed the issue as either-or. We can either keep our diplomats safe or we can have attractive, inviting embassies. And much of what I have seen has fallen on the side of "we are really being paranoid...we need to be more inviting." Sorry, but since I don't get a gun or bullet-proof vest, and since terrorists DO like to target diplomats overseas, I like safe embassies."

Too much of the criticism of our "fortress embassies" comes from those who will never work in them nor ever deploy overseas with the proverbial bullseye of U.S. government service emblazoned on their backs.

"(L)ike our soldiers, I know that serving my country is dangerous. And like them, I want to be able to control the amount of danger as much as possible."

re: "Drone Wars and International Law"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("We’re an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis. For the most part, our views are Classical Liberal: a strong belief in free trade, limited government, and respect for human rights. We aim to have informed, polite conversation about the issues which we find interesting.") has his heart (and his head) in the right place.

Money quote(s):

"I’m less eager than Carpenter to arrest and rehabilitate terrorists — hunting them down and killing them will do just nicely"

"Terrorists, guerrillas, insurgents, and other non-state actors who are waging war are combatants, pure and simple. And combatants can be targeted for killing rather than arrested. There’s no doubt about that under existing law."

&

"The primary gray area in international is what to do with enemy combatants who are captured in an asymmetric war. Are the entitled to precisely the same protection as uniformed, privileged belligerents? Can they be held for indefinite detention — or for the “duration of hostilities” in a war without end? That’s something that needs to be settled as a matter of practicality."

WT - LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't issue visas to terror-group supporters

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't issue visas to terror-group supporters

Friday, February 26, 2010

All of the Sept. 11 terrorists and the Christmas Day bombing suspect were issued visas by U.S. consular officers in the Middle East or Europe.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Before the Immigration Act of 1996, foreigners who were a security risk were denied tourist, student and business visas to the United States. This 1996 legislation was enacted into law by members of both major political parties and signed by the president.

Sponsored by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who wrote immigration legislation for 40 years, the Immigration Act stated that "mere membership" in a terrorist organization was not a sufficient basis for denying an applicant a visa. On June 10, 2002, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage wrote that believing "an applicant may pose a threat to national security ... is insufficient grounds for a consular officer to deny a visa to an applicant.""

_____

MARGARET NAST
Las Cruces, N.M.

NC34 - Schumer Unveils New Legislation To Cut Off These Visas For Citizens of 14 Countries Deemed Dangerous

From my archive of press clippings:

NC34

Schumer Unveils New Legislation To Cut Off These Visas For Citizens of 14 Countries Deemed Dangerous


Last Update: 1/25 10:34 am


From Young,Max (Schumer):



SCHUMER REVEALS: FOREIGNERS FROM TROUBLE SPOTS CAN STILL GET LONG TERM VISAS THAT ALLOW THEM TO COME TO U.S. NO QUESTIONS ASKED

Nigerian Bomber Used ‘Revolving Door’ Visa That Allowed Unlimited Entry To U.S.—Seven 9/11 Hijackers Entered Country Same Way


Schumer Unveils New Legislation To Cut Off These Visas For Citizens of 14 Countries Deemed Dangerous


Schumer Also To Grant State Dept. Unfettered Access To Largest Version of Terrorist Databases; Would Block Visas From Being Issued To Any Name Appearing on List

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer revealed Wednesday that the foiled Christmas Day terrorist plot could have been avoided if not for a tourist visa that allowed the would-be bomber unlimited entry to the United States in spite of countless signs that he was a security threat. To fix this, Schumer announced that he would propose strict limits on the type of open-ended visa that allowed the suspect to board a U.S.-bound plane. Schumer’s plan would require, for the first time, citizens of 14 countries identified as security threats by the Obama administration to apply for permission each time they wish to visit the United States rather than enter at will by virtue of so-called “revolving door” visas that stay valid for years at a time.

Read the whole article here.

re: "So “Terrorists” Do Exist?"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England") provides some American historical perspective in reponse to the to-be-expected grousing from CAIR.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he rest of us had understood “violence” never had anything to do with Islam? Certainly, much media appeared to think that same way.

Moreover, if many “individuals and institutions” were obviously not so unfamiliar with the complexity of Americans’ historical love-hate relationship with their secular state? And if they were not, that they would be better able to grasp the essential difference between the worry and self-preservationist fear that undergirded the likes of, say, the “Whiskey Rebellion”…

…and has always existed, and exists still, compared to that which motivates foreigners who seize Americans on the high seas — and now slaughter them, en masse, at home — and who justify doing so owing to what they proclaim is commanded by their holy book?"